As mentioned earlier, because of unchecked ideological bias and lack of independent expert verification blogs and newspaper editorials are unreliable when it comes to providing accurate information about science. True to form the blog in the quote appended below touts a flawed survey by a medical researcher (an endocrinologist) concerning papers on climate science, published between 2004 and 2007.
Naomi Oreskes, the geologist and scientific historian whose 2004 article on the scientific consensus on global warming was criticized by the said survey, has recently written a rebuttal exposing fatal errors in the survey, and showing how badly she was misrepresented by its author. Other science professionals have directly refuted the claims of the survey by repeating it themselves, but with greater rigor and care. Oreskes herself has also just published an updated article on the scientific consensus in a book released by the prestigious MIT press, entitled "Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. Cheers, Santosh --- Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Since you refuse to read my sources, let me quote > you > from the study reported in the following link of 528 > papers written by CLIMATE scientists: > >http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm > > > [Quote] > Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) > gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If > one > considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the > consensus without explicit statement), the figure > rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) > reject the consensus outright, the largest category > (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept > or > reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." > [end of excerpt] >
